The Release and Symposium of the China Urban Competitiveness Report (2012) was Held in Hong Kong

     (May 23, 2012, Hong Kong) " The HongKong News Conference of the “China Urban Competitiveness Report (2012)” washeld in Hong Kong on May 23, 2012. The conference was sponsored by the BetterHong Kong Foundation, and jointly organized by the Research Center of City and Competitiveness of CASS andthe Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of the Chinese University ofHong Kong. The composition of the report took more than six months, and it wasled by Dr. Ni Pengfei, head of the City and CompetitivenessResearch Centerin CASS, along with urban competitiveness experts from Mainland China, China’sTaiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. 
The theme of this year’s report was “Competitiveness: 10 years of efforts to make a change”. The reportreviewed the 10- year development of the competitiveness of Chinese cities. BesidesProfessor Ni Pengfei, who attended the conference as the keynote speaker, the Foundationalso invited Mr. Lin Jianfu, professor of the department of economics atNational Taiwan University and vice dean of the Institute for Advanced Studies inHumanities and Social Sciences at National Taiwan University, Professor LiuChengkun from the School of Administration and Management at Macau Universityof Science and Technology, and Professor Shen Jianfa, director of the ResearchPlanning of Asia-Pacific Cities and Regional Development of the Hong KongInstitute of Asia-Pacific Studies in the Chinese University of Hong Kong to jointhe conference and share their opioions.

1. The ranking of the urban comprehensivecompetitiveness

The top 10cities in 2011 were: Hong Kong, Taipei, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou,Tianjin, Hangzhou, Qingdao, and Changsha. Compared with the top 10 cities in 2010,this year the overall gap among the cities had been narrowed, and the changesof the ranking were intense. Qingdao replaced Dalian to become No. 10; Taipei increasedto the second place; Beijing welcomed its first victory over Shanghai; and Shanghaifell back to the fourth place.

The changes ofthe top 50 cities in 2011 from that of 2010 were: the number of the centralcities increased, and the prefecture-level cities improved rapidly. Among the sub-provincialcities in the 2011 ranking, Chengdu was the one that had the greatest increase:8 rankings; in the capital cities, Nanchang enhanced the most in the ranking by10; in the prefecture-level cities, Nantong increased the maximum ranking of 7.

Professor NiPengfei pointed out that over the past 10 years, the Chinese mainland citieshad enjoyed significantly improvement in the competitiveness. The northeasternregion had done a remarkable job; the central areas had serious differentiationissues with the rapid rise of the urban centers. Large cities still dominatedthe ranking, and there was intense competition in small and medium cities. Thedevelopment of prefecture-level cities was in the front pack of the country. Thecompetitiveness gap between cities was reduced on the over level and expanded onthe partial level. However, the change of pattern in economic growth still hada long way to go.

2. Theperformance of Hong Kong’s urban competitiveness

Since thereturning to China, Hong Kong had experienced several external economic shocks.But the city continued to improve its competitiveness in the international stage,and maintain its 1st position in competitiveness in the country. These showedthat Hong Kong was leading the rapid rise of Chinese cities in the globalcompetition.

The keyadvantages of Hong Kong were very prominent; the mainland cities still had somecatching up to do. Hong Kong had outstanding leading edges in terms of high-endelements, infrastructure, environment, institutional environment, and socialenvironment. With the development of the Mainland, Hong Kong’s role as theinternational financial, trade and shipping center was more consolidated andstrengthened. Though the gap between Hong Kong and the mainland cities narrowed,it would still take a certain amount of time for Shenzhen, Beijing, Shanghai, andGuangzhou catch up with Hong Kong.

Hong Kong hadbeen upgrading its industrial level, and its industrial structure still neededto be improved. The services sector accounted for more than 90% of Hong Kong’stotal GDP. Also, the proportion of the four pillar industries in Hong Kong wasgradually improving, up from 48.8% in 2001 to 58% in 2010. However, the financialand professional services that based on producer services, were mainly benefitedfrom the development of the mainland economy, and had created limitedemployment opportunities on its own.

Though enjoyed significantincrease in the income level, Hong Kong could not ignore the income gap. Overthe past decade, the income level of Hong Kong continued to improve; from 2001to 2010, the per capita GDP rose by 41.3%. In 2010, Hong Kong’s per capita GDPreached US$31,700, ranking in the global forefront. But in the same period, 10%of Hong Kong’s residents had an income increase by 60%, while the lowest 10% ofincome group had encountered a fall by about 20%.

The Guangdong-HongKong regional cooperation had entered into the fast lane, but the mechanismsfor cooperation needed a breakthrough. Over the past decade, regionalco-operation between Guangdong and Hong Kong had entered into the fast lane. Theareas of cooperation were growing; the cooperation model had been innovated. Thepositioning of the cooperation shifted to focus on attracting foreigninvestment to build the most dynamic and internationally competitive cities inthe Asia-Pacific region. The objectives were constantly changing and improving.

The reportrecommended that Hong Kong should be committed to building the most sustainablecompetitive global city in order to cope with global challenges, lead the urbandevelopment of domestic cities, and constantly improve the well being of HongKong residents. These included the development of the knowledge economy, andthe promotion of a finance-led economy; the construction of the city of scienceand education, and the promotion of scientific and technological innovation; thebuilding of a low-carbon city, and the protection the environment; the promotionof inclusive growth, and the construction of a harmonious city; the expansionof the opening-up to keep its vitality of free trade; the development of multi-cultureto lead theurban civilization.

3. Theanalysis of the changes of Hong Kong’s urban competitiveness from theperspective of global cities

Professor ShenJianfa, director of the Research Planning of Asia-Pacific Cities and RegionalDevelopment of the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies in the ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong attended the conference. Mr. Shen noted that researchteam in CUHK had analyzed the changes of Hong Kong’s urban competitiveness from2000 to 2009 from the perspective of global cities. The 2012 Annual Report of China’sUrban Competitiveness announced the research findings. The system of competitivenessindex system used in this study included the performance part and explanationpart. By standardizing process, the range of values was confined within 0-100.

The performance partof Hong Kong’s competitiveness included four major areas, namely, the globalcontrol functions, the financial industry, the services industry, and theinternational communications. Overall, the urban competitiveness of Hong Kong hadbeen rising since 2000, stating that Hong Kong’s status as a global citycontinued to be strengthened. Due to the financial crisis, Hong Kong’s urbancompetitiveness began to weaken in 2008. In 2008, Hong Kong’s competitivenessscore fell by 10 points; in 2009, it fell another 5 points to 85 points. Thefinancial industry and the services sector rebounded in 2009.

In the explanationpart, the research selected five pillars, namely, the economic drives, the educationlevel and quantity of labor, the environmental quality, the social stability,and the transport and telecommunications infrastructure to explain the urbancompetitiveness of Hong Kong.

The index ofeconomic drives and the index of transport and telecommunication infrastructureenjoyed an onward trend from 2001. The two indices reached the peak in 2008 and2009 respectively. The index of education level and quantity of labor decreasedslightly in the 1980s, and continued to rise until 2009. From 1990 to 2006, theenvironmental quality index fell and rose greatly. Since 2006, theenvironmental quality index gradually increased until 2008. The index of socialstability also fluctuated largely; during the six years from 1999 to 2005, the socialstability index reached the highest point and the lowest point in 2002 and2005.

The index of theeconomic drives included five aspects, i.e., market efficiency, internationalinvestment, corporate performance, the promotion of creative environment andoffice supplies. The index of research and development expenditure of highereducation and government agencies slowly rose in 2004, and rapidly increased in2006. Although the Hong Kong government had already included the innovative technologyas one of the key development projects, it still needed to devote moreresources to stimulate the development of local industries.

The sub-index ofthe education level of labor included the index of degree holder in the employeesand the index of holders of bachelor degree and suitable age enrollment of postgraduateprograms of the UGC (University Grants Committee)-funded institutions. Talentwas the key element for Hong Kong’s urban competitiveness. In the labor forcepopulation, the proportion of employees with an above college degree rose from24% in 2000 to 31% in 2010. But this ratio still fell behind of other global citiessuch as London. In London, the proportion was 31% in 2005. Meanwhile, the majorcities in Mainland China were also catching up from behind. In 2010, 31.5% ofBeijing’s population and 22% of the population of Shanghai had a college degreeor above.

The index of socialstability included five sub-indices, i.e., health, housing, employmentenvironment, purchasing power, as well as security and corruption. Thesub-index of employment environment hit a new height in 2008. The sub-index ofsecurity and corruption bottomed out in 2008 and then peaked in 2003. Thesub-index of health continued rising from 1980. The sub-index of purchasingpower fell down after the rebounds in 2001 and 2006 respectively, andencountered a record-low score in 2008. The sub-index of housing also had a fallingtrend. In 1985, this sub-index scored 100, and after that it kept falling. In2008, its score was 30. The unaffordable high housing prices andthe falling purchasing power were important factors affecting the socialstability of Hong Kong.

Basically, allthe explanatory indices had performed well in recent years. However, it isnoteworthy that the sub-index of housing and purchasing power had a trend ofdecline recently. The future performance of these indices had an importantimpact on the development of Hong Kong’s urban competitiveness. Clearly, HongKong’s financial and professional services sector were still the best in China.Hong Kong would play an important role in China’s modernization process.

Ms. Karen Tang,CEO of the Better Hong Kong Foundation concluded, “The different competitivestrengths of Hong Kong, such as strong global control functions and serviceswill strengthen Hong Kong’s advantages in the high-end industries, as well asdeepening Hong Kong’s role of being the bridge between China and Asia and theworld. These competitive advantages will strengthen our position as the globalcity.”

If you have any inquiries, please contact Ms.Jimmie Chow, communication manager of the Foundation. Tel: (852) 28653529 /60306025; Fax: (852) 28613361; E-mail: jimmie_chow@betterhongkong.org; Website:www.betterhongkong.org. 

    


- END -

Better Hong KongFoundation


61th Floor Bank of China Tower, 1 Garden Road,Central, Hong Kong


Tel: (852) 28612622         Fax: (852) 28613361


E-mail: mailbox@betterhongkong.orgWebsite: www.betterhongkong.org

“Better Hong Kong Foundation” was founded by agroup of influential people from Hong Kong’s business community and the societyin 1995. The Foundation has been committed to maintaining a continuous andclose cooperation relations with foreign community, and actively introducesthem to the latest developments and achievements in Hong Kong, in order to makethe international community have a better understanding on the development ofHong Kong and China.